LISBURN SEVENTEENTH CENTURY TOKENS

by ROBERT HESLIP

Lisburn Seventeenth Century
Tokens

Historians, by definition, are primarily concerned with
written sources and this can sometimes lead to a neglect of other relevant
material. The main job of museums, on the other hand, is to curate and study
objects. Regrettably, the resources they hold are often misunderstood and under-utilized.
Numismatics is a good choice to illustrate the problem. The numismatist can
spend a lifetime in the study and arrangement of coins but the information
gathered may never appear outside specialist publications. The historian, even
the economic historian, often ignores a large corpus of information which
usually complements, and sometimes replaces, mote familiar material. It is hoped
that this article will make this potential source more widely known and
encourage those who may be chary of a strange specialization.

Governments have never found it economically attractive to
supply small change, although this has long been regarded both as a facilitation
of trade and a social duty. By the 17th century, an economy existed within which
money functioned in a manner recognizable today. It should come as something of
a shock, therefore, to discover that in the middle years of the century, little
regard was given to the problem of petty coinage. Denominations under sixpence
were scarce, although small coins down to silver halfpennies were made at times.
A comparable situation today would be if no currency was readily available other
than banknotes. As well as not being easily obtainable, small values in precious
metal were hardly practical, either in production or in use, with the halfpenny
weighing little more than a quarter of a gram. James 1 thought that by selling
the right to strike copper farthings he could kill several birds with one stone,
but the resultant coins, probably current in Ireland only from 1623 (in spite of
the fact that a harp featured as the reverse design from their first appearance
in 1613), seem never to have been popular in either England or Ireland. They
were small, easily forged and sold at a discount for bulk. In short, they failed
to persuade a public, convinced of the importance of the bullion element in
coinage, that they were other than a royal money-making scheme. The issue ceased
in 1644, and in spite of numerous proposals, some of which reached the stage of
having patterns struck with such speaking legends as 'The Relefe of the Pore'
and `for Necessity of Change', no authorized copper coinage appeared. It was not
until 1672 that the need for official copper halfpennies and farthings was
catered for in England.

In Ireland the position regarding small change may have
been somewhat better than in England, in spite of recurrent and chronic
shortages of specie. There had been large issues of small copper pennies and
halfpennies in 1601 and 1602, but these probably ceased circulation in 1623
after the introduction of the farthings produced under royal patent. Scotland
had long experience of copper and billon (i.e. very base silver) coinage. James
VI and Charles I issued substantial numbers of small copper coins worth 2d Scots
called 'turners'. These are common finds from 17th century contexts in the
northern parts of Ireland. Copper double-tournois issued by Louis XIII and some
local magnates in France circulated with the turners in Scotland and also appear
with them in Ireland. It is yet unclear, however, if this imported coinage was
in common circulation here much before the 1650s. Neither do we know the rate at
which these coins passed-an English penny was the equivalent of twelve Scots
pence, so the turner should have been worth less than an English farthing.

Under the Commonwealth and Protectorate (1649-53 and
1653-600), the central monopoly on the right to issue all coinage may have
mattered less than in previous years. In the event, the obvious need for small
change was filled in England from 1651 by a flood of small copper
pieces-tokens-mostly valued at a halfpenny or a farthing, issued by traders and
towns. The operation of these pieces is perhaps easiest to explain by analogy
with promissary notes or I.O.U.s. The contrast between an uncertain promise to
pay (albeit in metallic form) offered by the tokens, and the official coinage of
22 ct gold and sterling silver, must have been large and perhaps tells us
something about economic stability and confidence during the interregnum and its
aftermath.

In Ireland, tokens appear in 1653 and continue until 1679,
being replaced by regal halfpennies in 1680. Over 800 different issues, from 179
localities, are known from Ireland at present. Most Irish tokens, unlike the
English, give their denomination as a penny. A further contrast is often
provided by the lack of a precise statement of trade. Many English tokens give
some indication of the occupation of the issuer, who were often inn-keepers,
persons involved in retail trade, or employers of labour. In Ireland a bland 'Marchant'
is often the only information, sometimes supplemented by a trade company's arms.
Preliminary research on some southern issuers indicates that many fall into the
category of speculators and capitalists, rather then shopkeepers or simple
traders.' If careful examination of the activities of issuers outside the major
towns proves this picture to be widespread, one might suggest that the tokens,
as well as being an economic utility, were a speculation in their own right.
Given the difficulty of raising capital at a remove from the main financial
centres in the mid 17th century, the ability to put several pound's worth of
tokens (produced at a fraction of their face value) into circulation and keep
them there for several years, must have been a considerable boon. The analogy
with banking practice, in the period before reserves had to cover notes issued,
is clear.

In the British Isles, the technology of coin-making was
going through a transitional stage at this time, with several suitable methods
for the production of small copper coins being available. All the tokens were
struck between two dies, on which a design was incised either by the use of
punches or engraving, usually by a combination of both. The lower die, on which
the more important design was put because it wore more slowly, is known as the
obverse, and the upper as the reverse. These terms are equivalent to the
colloquial 'heads' and 'tails'. The design on the dies was impressed on the
blanks, or flans, by striking with a hammer, in a fly press, or by squeezing in
a rocker press. As will be realised, the level of technology required could vary
from the crude to the sophisticated, a couple of tokens even having legends on
the rim. In England, token production was largely in the hands of two or three
workshops identifiable (even in the absence of literary evidence) by letter and
other punches common to a number of dies. The same workshops seem to have
produced dies, and perhaps struck the tokens-the two operations not necessarily
being linked-for many Irish issuers. Some Irish tokens, however, by their
crudity and eccentric technique, are patently local productions and may, have
more interest for that reason. A variety of craftsmen had the basic skills
required to produce a die. The problem of producing flans (the coin before the
design is applied) was sometimes avoided by overstriking on the French double-tournois
mentioned above. The size and weight of tokens varies greatly, even among coins
of one issuer, but of course this should not have affected the value. The metal
used, judging by appearances, ranges from almost pure copper to various grades
of brass.

At present, fourteen 17th century tokens are known from
Lisburn. Numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are represented in the
Ulster Museum collection and have their provenances indicated.

1.

WILLIAM ANDREWS. 1671, [in
centre] W.B. either side of a merchant's mark.Reverse: IN LISBORN. MARCHANT
[in centre] 1D and a tree.

OLIVER: TAYLOR. MARCH or
Mr or
MERCER [in centre] 1D in a heart on a shield.Reverse:
ANT. IN. LISNEGARVEY [in centre] OT conjoined and
16 58 either
side. (B.H.N.P.S., Bean Coll., 'Mr'; F.J. Robb Coll., 'MARCH'; Dr. T.S.
Agnew, 'MARCH' and 'Mr'). There are three varieties of this token listed
by Williamson, two dated 1658 and that with 'Mercer' undated.

In Ulster, the number of tokens known from Lisburn compares
with Belfast's 26, and Londonderry's 18. The only other places to reach double
figures are Antrim and Coleraine with 11 each. In the south, Dublin's
pre-eminence is emphasised by 143 issuers, but one might be slightly surprised
to find other towns ranking as follows (if token issues are to be regarded as
reflection of population and economic importance): Galway 32; Drogheda 22;
Kilkenny 19; Youghal 17; Waterford 16; Wexford 15; Limerick 13; Cork 10. Tokens
appear in all sorts of unlikely places of little importance, emphasising that
perhaps some coins were not intended simply to supply change for retail trade.

It is not the purpose of this article to supply full
details of the Lisburn issuers - others are better qualified for the task - but
a few preliminary notes may be of interest. The most obvious place to start is,
of course, with the Hearth Money Roll2. There we find Adam Leathes
with 2 hearths; George Gregson, 3; Anthony Wrightson, 5; Edward Moore, 2. We can
probably associate `Mr. Ellis' (4 hearths), with the churchwarden 3
of Lisburn Cathedral in 1698 and with the Ed. Ellis, Apothecary' of the token.
The difficult nature of the Hearth Money records is well known and we need not
be too disturbed at a lack of total coincidence between the two lists of names.
A casual look in the index at the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland
reveals a little more information. William Andrews appears in the Rowan account
book, and there is a Connor Will of 1711/12 in which he appears possessed of at
least 246 acres. Edmond Ellis is comparatively well documented, with a Will of
1714, appearances in the Rawlinson papers and Hertford Rent Roll and other
sources. George Gregson features in the Lisburn records of the Society of
Friends and seems to have died about 1690. He also appears in the Subsidy Rolls
of Killultagh in 1663 and 1665. A Bryan Magee is in the Subsidy Roll for 1663
and Bryne (sic) Magee is a churchwarden in 1669. Denis Magee features in 1663,
1665 and 1667, being described in the latter entry as `Miles' (soldier). Such
versatility would be entirely in keeping with what we know of many other
issuers. There is an Anthony Wrightson with the rank of Cornet in the Army
accounts of 1690/91. This list could be easily amplified, and perhaps some
picture built up of the scale and nature of the financial affairs of these men.

Another approach is to look at the tokens themselves. The
most immediately exciting piece is obviously that of John Peers (no. 10) which
has a building represented on the reverse, This is described as the Lisburn
Market House in Williamson 4, but according to Macalister5,
was regarded as a church by Fletcher. The importance of a 17th century
representation of the Market House, however crude, is obvious and it is worth
examining the problem in some detail. By far the commonest type of building on
the tokens is a castle. With few exceptions these are wholly conventional,
almost heraldic in appearance and produced from stock punches. The next
commonest type of building to be depicted is a church, and here there is more
variety in style. The examples with which I am familiar, however, do not
resemble the device on the Peers token. One is then left with buildings of the
market house type for comparison. There is a Dublin token of Thomas Speght which
was regarded by competent antiquarians as having a representation of the Thosel.
Two tokens of Limavady show a building labelled on the coins themselves as `New
Hall', and these perhaps provide the best comparison with the Lisburn piece. The
use on tokens of devices to locate an issuer was common in England and
well-known in Ireland. Sometimes, this was a precise reference to an actual
sign, or to a street, or a landmark identifying the town. If it could be proved
that Peers operated out of the Market House, one would be confident of the
attribution, but unfortunately there is a further complication in that John
Peers was a cathedral churchwarden in 1672. At present, therefore, one can only
observe that the device is not the product of a standard punch, and therefore
may be presumed to be an attempt to represent a specific structure. A depiction
of any pre-1708 Lisburn building is of value. My own opinion is that the row of
semi-circles above the base line might well be intended to represent arcading of
the market house type.

A number of points may be made about the other tokens. The
covered cup on Gregson's token (no. 4) is a prominent part of the arms of the
Goldsmiths' Livery Company, and taken with the scales on the reverse, may
indicate that he was advertising himself as performing same of the functions of
a goldsmith. He does not appear in published lists of members of either Dublin
or London companies. In Lisburn, the trade is most unlikely to have involved
actual fabrication, but rather the buying and selling of plate (an important
part of many capital transactions) and acting as banker, including the changing
of money. The tokens of W.R and W.R.' and `D.M: show every sign of competent
local manufacture, and some at least were struck over double-tournots. The
lettering seems to have been produced by the use of a very limited number of
straight and curved punches, supplemented by the use of a drill. The style is so
closely identifiable with that used on coins of Brian Magee that the temptation
to see 'D.M.' as Denis Magee and a brother of Brian is almost irresistible. The
tokens of W.R. on his own are only given to Lisburn on this basis, but although
exact duplication between the punches is not apparent, perhaps because of the
technique used, the style is entirely distinctive. I am aware of only one
comparable piece from the north, that of Phelem Magenis of Dromore, Co. Down,
and this is a much less accomplished production. Given that tokens only had a
value if they could be redeemed, it is quite remarkable that pieces bearing only
initials could circulate. The implication must be that the issuer was
well-known, at least in mercantile circles, and that the tokens were not
intended to travel far. Given these facts, a tentative identification may be
possible after an extensive search in the available records.

Almost as much of a puzzle is the piece numbered 12 on the
list, apparently issued jointly in Lisburn and Coleraine, It may be, of course,
that one is wrong in assuming the name on the reverse indicates 'St. John Green
of Coleraine'. A firm identification cannot be provided, however, until the
discovery of someone of that name in Coleraine at the appropriate time. Primary
finds of tokens would appear to have some role to play in indicating commercial
links, and contrary to remarks above, pieces are found at considerable distances
from their places of origin. In some cases these may be discarded coin, disposed
of as having no value, but not all the evidence can be dismissed in this way.
Personal commercial connections between Lisburn and Coleraine therefore seem the
moat likely explanation. The capital cost of the die was probably the major part
of the total expense in making an issue of tokens. Wrightson and Green may
consequently have found it expedient to share the expediture involved.

Readers of this journal may be interested in two other 17th
century tokens from the area.

Trade tokens undoubtedly filled a need, but they could only
be regarded as treating a symptom, not solving a problem. In 1660, Charles II
granted Sir Thomas Armstrong a patent to strike farthings on the pattern of
those current twenty years before, but few of these ever reached Ireland.
Attempts at imposing royal authority and banning the tokens were unsuccessful
until the real issue was addressed and a more attractive replacement provided,
in the form of the handsome official halfpennies which appeared regularly after
1680. These were not only legal tender, but on average five times the weight of
the tokens. The numismatic history of Ireland can be seen as a series of
shortages, however. In the early 18th century the situation worsened again, with
the result that tokens once more appeared.

REFERENCES

1.

Personal communication from Mr.
C. Gallagher,

2.

Taken from a copy of Mr. T.G.F.
Patterson's transcription in Lisburn Museum.

3.

A list of churchwardens may be
found in W.P. Carmody, Lisburn Cathedral and its Past Rectors, 1926.

4.

G.C. Williamson, Trade Tokens
Issued in the Seventeenth Century A New and Revised Edition of William
Barrie', Work, Vol, 1, 1889; Vol. 11, including Ireland, 1891.
Williamson relied heavily on local contributors, amongst whom was Canon
Grainger, the Co. Antrim antiquary.

5.

R.A.S. Macalister, 'A Catalogue
of the Irish Traders Tokens in the Collection of the Royal Irish
Academy', in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. XT, Sect. C,
No. 2, pp 19-185, where Mr. Lionel Fletcher, a prominent English
collector and expert, is quoted.

Robert Heslip is Assistant Keeper in the Department of
Local History in the Ulster Museum, where his primary responsibility is for the
numismatic collections.